[OT] Foreign Policy

Von Fugal von at fugal.net
Fri Jan 25 11:05:23 MST 2008

* Jason Hall [Fri, 25 Jan 2008 at 09:14 -0700]
> On Jan 24, 2008 10:38 PM, Von Fugal <von at fugal.net> wrote:
> > * Justin Findlay [Thu, 24 Jan 2008 at 21:45 -0700]
> > > >  Getting off the gold standard is bad.
> > >
> > > I guess we've been in a bad situation for the past 112 years.
> >
> > As a matter of fact...
> >
> Actually the Gold standard has more than it's fair share of warts.  It's

Maybe so.

> largely flawed as equally as the pure GNP (Fiat) standard we run now.  This

Certainly not equally. Google for dollar value, and see what your
precious fiat is worth. Even better search for dollar since 1913. I see
many sources that all say the dollar lost somewhere from 90% to 96% of
it's value since 1913.[1] That's like 5 cents (easy math, there). And this
is consistent with another source that says the number of dollars to
equal one dollar of 1913 with a table, on 2006 is $20.18.[2] Again, that's
less than 5 cents! Other sources say the dollar is worth from about 10
to 20 cents now compared to 1950.[3] If you look at the entire history as a
whole, there is an undeniable downward trend, and not just a mild one,
either. Now government spending is catching up even with the gross
incompetency of the Federal Reserve. If we maintained at least this
constant rate of inflation all might not be so bad, but in late years
things have gotten so out of hand that now other countries are all but
giving up entirely on the US Dollar. Bad news for us.

> is one of the thing that really annoys me with the politics of the
> libs/cons/ and other political groups I normally associate with.  They point
> at our old standard and how it must be better because of the problems we
> have now.  Well we had problems them, which are massively compounded by
> certain events that happened in WWII (global gold ownership, etc), plus the
> effect this has on the more struggling economies.

Eh? We weren't on any gold standard in WWII. The Fed was well
established by then. Some even say that it was America that dragged the
rest of the world into the great depression. I guess those countries
dropping us like rocks now couldn't do better for themselves.

> Frankly, the gold standard is only good for those countries that currently
> own the gold, and will put existing third world countries in an even harder
> spot, making trade *much* more difficult.  And that's some of the smallest
> concerns in terms of problems with the gold standard.

At least they actually have something.
The counterfeit money standard is only good for those that print the
money and those that sell stuff directly to those that print the money.
In this case, it's the government and warmongers whom the government
buys weapons from (among others, as we all know it's not JUST the war,
that's just an example). The rest of us pay for it through increased
prices, fewer jobs, lower wages, and diminishing returns, worthless
savings, and probably no retirement.

> It has merits, but no more that what we are currently running (which I don't
> care for either).  Some good Econ courses can help learn about other
> systems, especially in the relatively new concept of global economics.

As I conceded at the beginning, the gold standard probably has it's own
faults indeed. But why should we have any one standard? Especially in a
global economy? We should put our monetary system to the same principles
as the rest of our economy. Free Market. I can't believe the Fed ever
got the exclusive monopoly on all things money, nor that it has kept it
for this long. It's time to throw it out the window.

Von Fugal

This last one claims a 3 cent dollar since 1915, but they're trying to
sell gold.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20080125/28dc36ee/attachment.bin 

More information about the PLUG mailing list